Why do science and health reporters lack background in their subject?
Previously: Why do science and health reporters lack any background in their subject? – Social Panic
This week: This authoritative piece “Electrifying Homes Is the Biggest Reno Ever. But It’s Worth It. – Bloomberg“:
Ridding households of fossil fuels will raise electricity bills, but there’s savings to be had at the pump and through greater efficiency. Plus there’s helping save the planet.
The author has a BA in history. He became an energy columnist for Bloomberg and authoritatively tells everyone how their future will be controlled by people like him. He has no background in math, science or engineering, meaning he most likely lacks the specific skills essential for skeptical questioning deep in the subject.
Bloomberg is running a series on climate change by Kal Penn, and actor and host of Money Hungry on The Food Network, voice of a Disney character, etc, with a degree in sociology and theater. For Bloomberg, he covers climate change. Seriously.
This looks like Bloomberg is not taking climate topics seriously – and appointing amateurs to covering the topic.
How is this any different than a personal blog (like this one) where a variety of topics are covered by a brain injured idiot (me)?
Last week, a young social media columnist (that is her “beat”) wrote a top of the page article telling Elon Musk how he should run his businesses. Because she understands Musk’s businesses better than Musk?
I have an annual subscription to Bloomberg that runs into summer. But I am thinking of seeing if I can cancel it before then. While their straight business and financial reporting is done by qualified staff, the network has veered heavily into what feels like climate propaganda reported by persons lacking qualifications to cover the topic – and I do not wish to spend my money supporting that effort.
One thought on “Why do science and health reporters lack background in their subject?”